August 2006 Weddings
caden
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
If debating is SO critical....
Why did Obama refuse all those townhall debates with McCain?
That would have illuminated their postitions long ago, before anyone got an absentee ballot. There would have been more time for analysis too. We all would have been more informed on where they stand.
Re: If debating is SO critical....
I am a runner, knitter, scientist, DE-IVF veteran, and stage III colon cancer survivor.
I don't know for sure, but my thought is that they would have disrupted already planned campaign events, and he didn't feel like cancelling those just because McCain asked him to. I guess he could've found the time, but one of the debates is a town hall format, so maybe they felt that base was already covered. Debates are important, but engaging and energizing people who probably will vote for you to make sure they go to the polls is vital, too.
I also imagine that if there were twice as many debates to pay attention to, fewer people would watch them all. Of course it's like a wet dream for me to have weekly debates, but more casual observers would not be as interested.
"As of page 2 this might be the most boring argument ever. It's making me long for Rape Day." - Mouse
Isn't it common knowledge that the guy with the lead often won't debate if he thinks it will provide any opportunity to expose a weakness?
You don't think he could do those two things at once? Because we learned yesterday that Presidents very often have to do two things at once and debates are critically important.
Because we don't NEED a billion town hall debates. The candidates decided TOGETHER, early on, that we needed three presidential debates and one VP debate, and they agreed on times and places.
Don't try and switch the blame to Obama on this one. McCain is the one who is backing out of the JOINTLY agreed upon terms.
debates aren't in the "more-the-merrier" realm... you and me and the rest of us on this board would watch 65 debates, but most of the American public wouldn't. Three, including the VP debate, is a decent number.
the other thing is this: there's no reason for the McCain campaign to be doing this other than raw political tactics. If the economic crisis is such a big deal that the debate shouldn't happen, why didn't they figure that out 10 days ago? That alone makes Obama's decision simple - - push for the debate, hard, because McCain's resistance only makes him look bad.
I am the 99%.
They already agreed to the real debates and then McCain throws this idea out there - it was blanant pandering. I do wish the first debate had been earlier but no one asked me.
my read shelf:
I think debates are important, but I don't have an issue with the actual number of debates that have been scheduled or the proposed timing for them to take place in the last weeks leading up to the election. I think 10 townhall meetings proposed by McCain in addition to the debates was too much and as we saw with the democratic primary, I don't think quantity necessarily helped the quality of the debates and actually hurt it imo. People lost interest and they became petty rather than informative.
We are now down to the last 40 days before the election and yes debates are important. Of course now with hindsight available, had we known that someone was going to suspend all campaigning then the argument could have been made that maybe we should have debated earlier. But suspending the campaign is not a common occurrence (at least not that I am aware of) so I don't see why people should have felt this sense of urgency to debate more or sooner than what has historically taken place on the off chance this would happen.
Did you not see the many posts about how critical debates are?
65? McCain invited Obama to 10. We don't need to watch them to be benefited by them. They would have been analyzed and discussed in the media, which is exactly why Obama refused to do them. He chose to limit his exposure a long time ago, so it's disingenuous for him to be critical of McCain for wanting to push one debate's date back.
Nearly 10 days ago, Barney Frank (D, MA) was telling people Freddie & Fannie didn't need to go into conservatorship. You didn't hear the candidates talking about fixing the crisis b/c the gov't didn't consider it a crisis then.
Yes...but I still don't see what your point is. The candidates agreed to three debates (a normal number). Now McCain wants to delay them all. What does prior discussions re. 10 townhalls have to do with the current situation other than to distract the discussion?
Oh come on, yes you do.
The previous threads presented debates as critical, the equivalent of a huge natural disaster like a hurricane. If they are critical now they were at the very least important a few weeks ago, or a month ago. Obama didn't have to agree to all 10. If he even did 1 we would have been better off. The Saddleback forum was interesting, watched by many, and was informative. Obama agreed to that, so he obviously agrees that it's important to clarify policy positions, yet he didn't want to debate until October? Maybe it's b/c he needed more practice time, or maybe it's b/c he's allowed to politick but McCain isn't.
Here's the difference: McCain asked Obama for townhall meetings. Obama said no.
They both agreed upon these debates. McCain is trying to waffle/back out/postpone indefinitely.
It's the reason why that interests me. Obama said no b/c it was politically expedient to do so. McCain is doing it now b/c it's politically expedient to do so. One got a pass, one gets blasted.
I want to see the debates as much as anyone and we all know they will happen.
Obama agreed to that, so he obviously agrees that it's important to clarify policy positions, yet he didn't want to debate until October? Maybe it's b/c he needed more practice time, or maybe it's b/c he's allowed to politick but McCain isn't.
Isn't October typically when the debates begin? Isn't 2-3 normal? So Obama wanting to do what has historically been done doesn't imply anything to me about needing more practice. It is McCain that is taking extraordinary steps by suspending his campaign, wanting to delay the debate that has been scheduled and that he should be more than prepared to do at this point, and proposing to delay the VP debate as well.
I think one issue is that these debates were decided on back in August if I'm not mistaken. And everything was a-go until McCain decided 3 days before he didn't want to do them. That is different then not agreeing with the format way back.
In all honesty, if Obama backed out 3 days before, you don't think conservatives would be all over that? I support him and even I would be upset and discouraged if he backed out 3 days before a scheduled televised debate. I was happy he didn't go along with McCain's idea to postpone them.
Caden,
I think you're really missing the point here.
Obama said "no" to debates that McCain suggested (whether or not it was politically expedient is a different matter).
McCain, on the other hand, is saying "no" to debates that they JOINTLY decided on.
Big - actually, HUGE - difference.
I just think if 2-3 debates are "critical" then more would still be beneficial. We all know the big debates are little more than 30 second talking points. Also, if McCain just pulled this out of thin air it would be absurd. But we're in a real crisis, so wanting to delay it is reasonable and legitimate. Canceling all of them, incl the VP debate, would not be reasonable, but a delay is given what's going on this week.
Way earlier than August, in fact. Dates and locations were decided almost a year ago, Nov. 2007.
The Commission on Presidential Debates announced the sites for three debates between the two parties' presidential nominees, and one for their running mates, on Monday. The first presidential debate will be Sept. 26, 2008, at the University of Mississippi in Oxford, Miss.; the second Oct. 7 at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn.; and the third on Oct. 15, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. The vice presidential debate will take place Oct. 2 at Washington University in St. Louis.?(from bizjournals.com)
Check out The Commission on Presidential Debates...?http://www.debates.org/ It's not some willy nilly thing that the candidates decide on amongst themselves.
Thank you for describing the obvious. I know why the debates are different. I'm just pointing out that debates somehow became critically important this week, but were not important during the previous months of campaigning when Obama refused to do them.
Also, McCain isn't saying "no."
"Former President Bill Clinton defended Sen. John McCain's request to delay the first presidential debate, saying McCain did it in "good faith" and pushed organizers to reserve time for economy talk during the debate if the Friday plans move forward."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/bill-clinton-do.html
I agree with Caden on this one -- Obama refused the town hall debates for political reasons. He had more money and giving McCain free airtime wasn't in Obama's best interest. This is politics. I do think though, that it is ridiculous for McCain to cancel agreed upon debates that plenty of people have spent lots of time and money on -- especially now that there are very few of them to see (due to Obama's refusal of town halls).
So I guess, actually, I can see both sides on this one. Obama should have done the town halls if they were so important, but McCain shouldn't be canceling the few debates they do have.
Well knock me over with a feather! Big dittos to BM*. The only thing I want to note is that I don't think McCain wants to cancel debates, just postpone the one. But if he does actually cancel them then I agree 100%.
"As of page 2 this might be the most boring argument ever. It's making me long for Rape Day." - Mouse
Ditto marriednow and BM*.
I do wish Obama had agreed to the town halls, wished he had at the time, and think it was a political move not to do so.
I also think more debates/town halls, esp early on, may have caused a burnout by the audience like it did in the primaries.
Both Obama's and McCain's refusals are political. From my POV, McCain's are more so, and in a less acceptable way. I fully accept that this opinion is rooted in my own biases, but here are my reasons:
- Obama said no, McCain postponed two days prior.
- Obama declined a new addition to the process, McCain postponed a long-held ritual of democracy (I'm not familiar with the history of televised debates, but they've been going on since Kennedy vs. Nixon, and on radio before I assume?).
- Obama made a political move during an uneventful period of the campaign; McCain made a political move in dramatic fashion during a real crisis.
I have to go to lunch, but that's what I came up with off the top of my head.Question re the historical part - historically in this century, didn't the presidential candidates often travel and campaign together more like what McCain had suggested?
I remember hearing that from some talking heads, but I can't find it on the google...